Smith v. United States
| Decision Date | 13 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 5562. |
| Citation | 274 F. 351 |
| Parties | SMITH v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Covington & Grant, of Ft. Smith, Ark., for plaintiff in error.
Emon O Mahony, U.S. Atty., of El Dorado, Ark., and J. S. Holt, Asst U.S. Atty., of Ft. Smith, Ark.
Before SANBORN and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and MUNGER, District judge.
The defendant below, Roy Smith, was indicted, tried, and convicted of unlawfully and willfully endeavoring, by assaulting and beating him, to influence, intimidate, and impede one Elmer Bohannon as a witness in a cause then pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, in which the Coronado Coal Company and others were plaintiffs and the United Mine Workers of America were defendants. He complains concerning the trial (1) that the court refused his request to instruct the jury to return a verdict in his favor; and (2) that it declined to instruct them that if, at the time of the assault and beating Bohannon was discharged by the court from further attendance as a witness, and a certificate for his attendance as a witness was issued to him by the clerk of the court, and he returned to his home in Johnson county, and was afterwards notified by a telegram from one of the attorneys of the Coronado Coal Company et al. to return to Ft. Smith, where the cause was on trial, he would not be a witness subject to the orders or under the protection of the court, unless he appeared in the court as a witness and submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court, or had been served with new process, and that the court charged the jury that if, at the time of the assault and beating, Bohannon had testified in the Coronado Coal Company case, had been discharged, and had gone to his home, and thereafter, while the case was still on trial and testimony was being taken before the jury, he had returned, upon receiving a telegram from one of the attorneys of the Coronado Coal Company, asking him to return and testify in rebuttal, then Bohannon was subject to recall before the jury.
Section 135 of the Criminal Code (U.S. Comp. Stat. Sec. 10305) declares that--
'Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, shall endeavor to influence intimidate, or impede any witness, in any court of the United States, * * * shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.'
The first question in this case is whether or not there was any substantial evidence at the trial to sustain the verdict of the jury that the defendant below was guilty of a violation of this statute. These facts were conclusively proved: The trial of the Coronado Coal Company's case was in Ft Smith, Ark. Bohannon lived in Hartford, Ark. He was subpoenaed by the plaintiffs' attorneys to testify in that case, and did testify on the call of the plaintiffs on November 1, 1918, and thereafter received his certificate for that day's attendance, was discharged as a witness, and went home. About the 14th day of November, 1918, he received a telegram from one of the plaintiffs' attorneys to come to Ft. Smith and testify in rebuttal. He came, afterwards proved his attendance in court on November 16 and 17, 1918, and testified in the case on November 17, 1918. About 4 o'clock in the afternoon of November 16, 1918, the day he came back to Ft. Smith from his home to testify the second time in response to the telegram, as he was walking on the street in Ft. Smith, within two blocks of the courtroom where the trial of the Coronado Coal Company's case was proceeding, the defendant Smith accosted him, charged him with having falsely testified in that case, and knocked him down. Smith testified that he told Bohannon that he had testified to a lie, and that he (Smith) knew that Bohannon had testified in the case, that he knew the trial was still proceeding, but that he did not know that Bohannon was going to testify again, that he thought he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mitchell
...v. United States, 116 F.2d 996 (5th Cir.), rev'd on other grounds, 313 U.S. 544, 61 S.Ct. 957, 85 L.Ed. 1511 (1941); Smith v. United States, 274 F. 351 (8th Cir. 1921).18 Section 1510 was intended to reinforce and expand the existing statutory structure by applying criminal sanctions to int......
-
Attorney Grievance v. Smith, 27 September Term, 2007.
...added.) (Emphasis in original omitted.) Lee v. State, 65 Md.App. 587, 592-94, 501 A.2d 495, 498 (1985) (quoting Smith v. United States, 274 F. 351 (C.A.8 1921)). 5. In his Memorandum Opinion n. 6, Judge Rubin "Jeremie Simpson testified at Smith's criminal trial only after acknowledging, in ......
-
Jones v. United States, LR-75-C-141.
...absence places the plaintiff initially in a tenuous position. In addressing myself to these criteria I look first to Smith v. United States, 274 F. 351 (C.A. 8th Cir. 1921), wherein it was stated that the purpose of § 135 of the Criminal Code (U.S.Comp. Stat. § 10305—the predecessor of 18 U......
-
U.S. v. Jackson
...v. United States, 215 F.2d 84, 88 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 888, 75 S.Ct. 208, 99 L.Ed. 698 (1954); Smith v. United States, 274 F. 351, 353 (8th Cir. 1921); United States v. Metcalf, 435 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1970); Broadbent v. United States, 149 F.2d 580, 581 (10th Cir. 1945).1......